In June 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada examined in detail the reasons for respecting collective bargaining as a human right. In the case of the Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association/British Columbia, the Court found that collective agreements in Germany are legally binding, which is accepted by the public, and this does not raise alarm bells.  [Failed verification] While in the United Kingdom there was (and probably still is) an „she and us“ attitude in labour relations, the situation is very different in post-war Germany and in some other northern European countries. In Germany, the spirit of cooperation between the social partners is much greater. For more than 50 years, German workers have been represented by law on boards of directors.  Together, management and workers are considered „social partners.“  The result of collective bargaining is a collective agreement. Collective bargaining is governed by federal and regional laws, administrative authorities and judicial decisions. The NRL establishes procedures for selecting a labour organization representing a unit of workers in collective bargaining. The law prohibits employers from interfering in this selection. The NRL requires the employer to negotiate with the designated representative of its employees. It is not necessary for both parties to approve a proposal or make concessions, but to set procedural guidelines for negotiations in good faith. Proposals that would be contrary to the NRL or other legislation should not be subject to collective bargaining.
The LNRA also sets rules on tactics (for example. B strikes, lockouts, picketing) that each party can use to promote its negotiating objectives. In 24 states, workers working in a unionized company may be required to participate in representation fees (for example. B for disciplinary hearings) if their colleagues negotiated a union security clause in their contract with management. The fee is usually 1 to 2% of the salary. However, union members and other employees receive on average a wage increase of 5 to 10% compared to their non-unionized (or unsured) colleagues.  Some states, particularly in the southern parts of the central and southeastern United States, have banned union security clauses; This can be controversial because it allows some net beneficiaries of the union contract to avoid paying their share of the cost of contract negotiations. Regardless of the state, the Supreme Court ruled that the law prevented a person`s trade union rights from being used without consent to fund political concerns that might conflict with the individual`s personal policy.